Russian Membership of the Council of Europe

Debate between Mark Field and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Thank you, Mrs Brooke, for calling me to speak.

It is a great pleasure to play a part in this thoughtful debate. It has been particularly interesting to be part of a debate in which a diversity of views has been expressed. Often, our relationship with Russia is seen in a monochrome way.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on bringing this matter to the House. As he pointed out, the Council of Europe was established in the embers of the second world war and inspired by the need at that juncture to rebuild our continent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) pointed out, it was Sir Winston Churchill himself who recognised that only shared standards and values on the law and human rights, alongside democratic development, would help to stitch Europe back together. However, I do not think there was any great naivety at that stage about those ideals. There was a recognition that the ideals would be perhaps honoured in part in their breach, but it was still important to be able to talk and to have some sort of relationship.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) made it clear that there are a number of glaring situations in our continent at the moment that do not pass muster, and that if we take this draconian step against Russia it would be very difficult to see that we would not do so against a number of other nations, given some long-standing issues. One that he did not mention that comes to mind is, as the Spanish would see it, the occupation of Gibraltar, which might also become an issue. However, perhaps it is better that we move on from that to something closer at hand.

The Council of Europe as currently constituted consists of 47 member nations, incorporating nearly all the European countries as well as the outliers in the Caucasus. It has, of course, become best known in this country for the European Court of Human Rights, which sits within its auspices. As hon. Members mentioned, it was almost 20 years ago, in 1996, that the Russian Federation was formally admitted as a Council of Europe member. Even then, its relatively dubious human rights record was overlooked, on the basis that it was making progress on implementing the rule of law alongside free and fair elections. That decision symbolised the west’s optimism, at that juncture, that Russia was on its way to a normalisation after the collapse of the Soviet Union only five years before. People were saying, “Give it time and patience. If Russia is brought into the international fold, it will eventually begin to act like an open, democratic state.” Or so we thought.

Since then, the relationship between the Council of Europe and Russia has at times been testy, particularly with regard to questions about legal supremacy. In 2014, the ECHR made more judgments against Russia than against any other country. The ECHR has been used by many enemies of the Kremlin, most notably the Yukos founder, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, to bring cases against the Russian state.

After President Putin’s intervention in Ukraine, the Council of Europe deprived Moscow’s delegation of its right to vote, a move that has sparked wider discussion among Russia's ruling class—not just the wives of those in the Duma, I suspect—about whether Russia would wish to continue its membership of the Council. Many in Russia believe it has a negative influence on their nation and would like Russian sovereignty restored on matters such as the death penalty. If Russia withdrew from the Council, that would likely sound the death knell for some of the naive idealism that has guided western policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I had a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said in quite a brave contribution that was not something one necessarily hears on the Floor of the House. He is right: the simplistic way in which Putin is portrayed as a dictator and a tyrant in much of our press fails to understand some deep-seated issues in Russia.

I have long cautioned against assuming that Russia is on a steady path to becoming a functioning, multi-party democracy. We have always failed to understand that many Russians, to this day, see the Gorbachev and Yeltsin era as a time of chaos, uncertainty and utter humiliation. Putin has been able to maintain some domestic popularity by retelling a more traditional Russian story, filling the vast ideological vacuum left by the disintegration of the communist ideal with the notion of a Russian civilisation based upon patriotism, selflessness and deference to an all-powerful state. In doing so, he continues to tap into a pool of resentment that goes beyond Russian borders, to encapsulate many of those who dislike the global dominance of the USA over the past two decades. Specifically in relation to Georgia, there is no doubt that the Georgian leadership in that period, up to 2007-08, was little more than a CIA front. That was going on in Georgia and it is perhaps one reason why we have rapidly moved on from discussing that issue.

We are now faced with the Crimean crisis—let us be brutally honest: there is no going back from Crimea’s being returned as part of Russia—and the ongoing hostilities in eastern Ukraine. This continues to baffle many here in the west who fail to grasp why Vladimir Putin would wish to re-engineer an old-fashioned, imperialistic land-grab that risks western ire and Russian company balance sheets. The Russian President may well be a nasty piece of work—I am not in any way defending what he is doing—but he is a master at fashioning strength from weakness. From a position of fragile financial and geopolitical clout, Putin has boosted his profile with a domestic and global audience as a champion for the interests of Russia and, more worryingly, the Russian diaspora, which we have touched on in relation to Latvia and Estonia. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said: there is a fundamental difference between the way that we will look at Latvia and Estonia in years to come—they are members of NATO, and therefore protected under article 5, and members of the EU—and how we view Ukraine. The “one step forward, one step back” approach that has characterised western diplomacy in Ukraine in the past 18 months will endanger the countries beyond and give Putin a sense that we will not be serious about where a line is drawn to defend countries that are in NATO.

I should not be too surprised if Putin were now to engineer a similar victory by pushing for Russian withdrawal from the Council of Europe, making the case that continued membership is untenable now that the institution has become a vehicle through which western policy alone is exercised. Mr Putin has already suggested that neighbouring countries’ membership of the EU and NATO is equivalent to those nations existing in a “semi-occupied state”. He may also try to present an exit from the Council as a proud declaration of the supremacy of Russian sovereignty, as well as a defence of his nation’s distinct world view and political culture when it is under grave threat. In doing so, Putin will hope to sow the seeds of discord among remaining Council members, particularly when it comes to the ECHR, already a subject of hot debate on these shores. Why not try to fracture the consensus on human rights by suggesting that the ECHR has diminished national sovereignty, blunting members’ ability to tackle dangerous terrorists and the like? That argument is made on these shores and I suspect it may be made by Putin’s Russia as well.

For nearly two decades, the ECHR has enhanced Russia’s domestic legal system and provided an important outlet of dissent for those most at risk in Putin’s Russia. Without it—we should remember this in debates that we will, no doubt, have in this country on the ECHR in years to come—many opponents of the Kremlin would not have been able to gain the same level of publicity for their day-to-day plight. Naturally, if Russia withdrew from the Council of Europe, the repercussions for such individuals would be considerable. Many colleagues have spoken about those issues in detail this morning.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful contribution, but where does that leave us in relation to the enforcement of judgments? For example, it is clear that the Russian Federation is not going to comply with the Yukos judgment against it. What sanction will there be when it does not?

[Mark Field]

I accept that. That is, I am afraid, part of the frustrating battle of diplomacy, which we can look at from afar, but which my right hon. Friend the Minister has to deal with day to day. I think diplomacy within the Conservative party is bad enough, let alone having to deal with the other 46 members of the Council of Europe, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that that is the nature of the steadfast, patient way in which we approach these issues. We need to approach the issue of Putin in a steadfast and patient way.

My long-term belief is that, looking at what is happening geopolitically, including with the rise of China, for example—I know it pains many to even think in these terms—our relationship with Russia has to be part of our solution, not part of our problem in the longer term. Putin will not be there for ever. We need to recognise the importance of Russia as a place with which we have to have a working, workable relationship. That is in no way to justify what is going on. It is right that we should try to work with whoever is leading Russia to ensure that, if we cannot solve the real problems that we face, diplomatically, at least we are able to move steadfastly in the right direction.

My main concern with a Russian withdrawal is that President Putin will use it as a sparkling opportunity to stoke division and sow doubt among remaining members of the Council of Europe. No nation has ever resigned its membership, just as no country has ever left NATO, the eurozone or the European Union, and I hope that will continue for the foreseeable future, although one or two of my hon. Friends do not take a similar view. I fear that, by demonstrating that the post-cold war consensus on democracy, human rights and rule of law might be shattered, Putin could challenge at a stroke other international institutions that have so painstakingly been built to serve our best interests and foster freedom in our continent over the past 70 years.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Mark Field and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill would make some relatively minor changes to street trading controls in the City of London and to the law on the walkways within the square mile. The only place where street trading can take place in the City is on Middlesex street, as part of the famous Petticoat lane market. The limitation on street trading can be traced back over a century and is reflected in the City’s current local legislation, which confines such activities to the street market on Middlesex street.

The reason for the City’s particular code lies in its demography—it is primarily a business area, not a residential one—and the unique demands that that imposes. As hon. Members will be well aware, the City was not always almost entirely a place of offices and of the commercial sphere. Until the rise of the railways, it was a significant residential area. It was home to more than 130,000 residents in 1801, but there was a precipitous drop as the railways emerged in the 1830s and 1840s, and the impact of the second world war, in particular, ensured that much of the residential population is now in the Barbican area.

However, London’s attractiveness as a tourist destination and the greater accessibility of the St Paul’s area via the Millennium bridge from Tate Modern at Bankside brings large numbers of tourists on a daily and hourly basis from south of the river. That has meant an increased demand for retail development around New Change and some retail development in the Broadgate area, and I suspect that before the world is too much older there may yet be further retail development in the area around Aldgate. It is development in the area around St Paul’s cathedral, in particular, and the New Change area adjacent to it, that has prompted a review of the existing code. The aim has been to try to meet the needs that the changes are generating while at the same time preserving the essentially business environment that the City needs in order to prosper.

In consequence, the City of London corporation now wants to utilise the Bill to liberalise the regime in two specific respects. First, the Bill is designed to enable temporary street trading licences to be issued to enable the use of public thoroughfares, such as Cheapside, for street markets and similar events. The new retail development at New Change, beside St Paul’s, aims to attract shoppers not just during the week, but at weekends. It provides a particular prompt because such liberalisation would enable promotional activities to be held. Of course, the timing of such events would have to be carefully managed because, as is well known, the City is relatively empty on most weekends.

Secondly, the Bill would allow ice cream and related products to be sold outside food premises. That, too, is prompted by increased tourist demand, particularly in the vicinity of St Paul’s. It is difficult to imagine the consumption of ice cream as an attraction at the moment, given the cold winter we are having, but I hope that it will be only a matter of weeks or, being pessimistic, months until that will prove extremely welcome.



These new regulatory changes are balanced by provisions for more effective enforcement of the street trading controls, including an increase in the maximum fine to the level that applies elsewhere in London and extension into the City of the powers available in other London boroughs to seize goods and property used in connection with unlawful street trading. I am well aware that that power of seizure may not be liked by all colleagues, even by some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). However, it reflects the powers that are available in the rest of London, although I should point out that it does not go as far as the powers that are available in the City of Westminster or even in the London borough of Wandsworth. I am sure that my hon. Friend is well aware of those powers. Street trading in the City is very limited in scope, but where it does exist effective provisions are needed to control it.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that other Bills recently debated in this House, including the Nottingham City Council Bill, the Canterbury City Council Bill, the Reading Borough Council Bill and the Leeds City Council Bill, all contained similar provisions to those contained in this Bill, but they were cut out when those Bills were considered in the other place, and those amendments were accepted by this House. Why is the City of London holding out against this?

[Mark Field]

As I said, there is a case to be made that the City of London is a different sort of local authority in a different sort of area given the preponderance of office space rather than residential space and its character as a business quarter. The corporation has tried to ensure that we encourage tourism. It is obviously in everyone’s interests to have a large amount of tourism throughout the UK, and attractions such as St Paul’s cathedral will remain of global importance. However, there is also a recognition that the square mile—the area of the City of London—is rather unusual in this regard. Therefore, the very limited changes proposed in the Bill should apply to the City despite the great efforts that my hon. Friend has made to ensure that such changes are not made in places as far flung as Reading, Canterbury and Nottingham.

These powers are intended not least to deal with the problem of ice cream vans trading illegally in the City—a rather small category of pedlarship, as my hon. Friend will recognise. These illegal traders have given rise to numerous complaints from the public, from schools, from businesses, and indeed from the chapter of St Paul’s cathedral. The City has brought cases against some traders, but the maximum fines that can be imposed have not, on their own, been adequate to deter this activity. That is why we are moving beyond the idea of a maximum fine to try to create a new power of seizure so that we can properly enforce the rules that are already in place.

[Mr Chope]

Will my hon. Friend give the House some idea of how many prosecutions of ice cream van traders there have been in the past year?

[Mark Field]

I shall endeavour to do so when we get into Committee, where we will have the full details.

The reason why prosecution is such an ineffective means of dealing with these things is that the fines are so derisory. The fine is currently set at level 2—only £500—and we are trying to raise it to the new maximum level of £1,000. However, even at that level it is so nugatory that the power of seizure would be more effective. As my hon. Friend is aware, the sheer cost of starting a legal action is outweighed manifold by the moneys that can be brought in through fines.

The European Union services directive has been raised in connection with the Canterbury City Council Bill and other recent local Bills. I thought that it might be helpful if I went into that in a little more detail than I had intended at this stage, having been prompted to do so by a brief discussion with my hon. Friend earlier. As Members are well aware, the EU services directive came into force on 28 December 2009. In respect of the City of London, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills accepted in correspondence some two years ago that the general prohibition on street trading can stay. It stated:

“We think that, by virtue of recital 9 to the Directive, there is a reasonable argument that a complete prohibition on street trading, as is the current situation in the City, except in respect of Middlesex Street is not caught by the directive at all (and so does not need to be analysed against the requirements of the Directive).”

Baroness Wilcox raised three issues on Second Reading in the Lords. One of them is pertinent to this debate and I will put it on the record, because I know that my hon. Friend would want to address it and it would make sense for me to do so now rather than in response to further interventions. The issue is whether a provision restricting ice cream street sales to a business occupier might indirectly be discriminatory against temporary service providers who have no established premises in the UK. I accept that this remains a live issue to an extent.

BIS set out some of the concerns in correspondence in July 2011 and suggested that most business occupiers in the City would be UK nationals or companies, and that the provision could therefore be seen to be indirectly discriminatory. The Department also recognised that for temporary service providers—in other words, someone who is not established here—the requirement is not likely to meet the directive’s necessity and proportionality principles. Indeed, the Department suggested that we take independent legal advice on the issue and, following a meeting with BIS in September 2011, the City corporation sought the opinion of leading counsel, which was sent to BIS in the past few weeks. On 14 February, BIS indicated that it “may disagree” with the opinion and confirmed as much on 19 February, but without giving any reasons beyond stating that the opinion had not changed its view that clause 9 is likely to be considered indirectly discriminatory in the context of service provision.

I hope the House will forgive me if I go into some detail, not just on leading counsel’s case, but more importantly on why we feel that this issue could and should properly be dealt with in Committee rather than by delaying this Second Reading. Leading counsel’s advice was, in summary, that the intended beneficiaries of the Bill are sellers or suppliers of food who are being allowed to trade a little way outside the premises that they occupy, that the commercial activity taking place in the street is a spill-over from that which is carried out in the associated premises, and that it is, therefore, clearly distinguishable from the right to sell ice cream as a street trader. As a result, such activity is subject to provisions on the freedom of establishment in the EU services directive. The counsel further advised that that is compatible with the provision in the services directive, as there is no restriction on who may open a food business in the City.

Likewise, the Bill does not make it any harder to open such establishments. In fact, many of the food businesses in the City of London are operated by nationals of other member states. Indeed, anyone who has tried to buy a coffee or a sandwich in a shop in the City will know that it is almost impossible to find anyone who is not a national of another state working in such an establishment.

For the specific purposes of this Second Reading, we strongly believe—I hope that this will satisfy my hon. Friend—that this does not affect any of the Bill’s provisions, particularly the provision of temporary street trading licences, about which I will say more in a moment. Therefore, the corporation will seek the views of businesses and discuss the issue with them. As has been said, similar elements were struck out of Bills relating to Canterbury, Reading and Nottingham, but we feel that there is a special case for the City of London and, given counsel’s opinion, we hope that we will prevail in Committee. This matter has been properly considered and should be fully examined in Committee. It should not delay the relatively smooth progress of the Bill through Second Reading.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his full explanation of the issue, but does he share my concern that a European Union directive has been incorporated into United Kingdom law and that the implications for cases such as this are not at all clear?

[Mark Field]

I very much share my hon. Friend’s concern about the lack of clarity and about the fact that, given that this has been in play for three years, the implications were not addressed in advance. Too much legislation from Europe seems to get through on the nod and the problems of compatibility only become apparent at a later stage. As I have said, a question remains, but we have received strong advice from leading counsel and hope that we will prevail on this matter when we examine it in Committee.

We feel that this is a useful, minor liberalising measure that will be welcomed by those who work in the City and the countless hundreds of thousands of people who visit the City daily. The tourists come in their millions every year. I make the pledge to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that I will be happy to table an amendment in Committee, in conjunction with the City corporation, if it appears that the advice that we have had from legal counsel is contrary to the EU services directive. However, I hope that we can proceed with the Bill even though there is a small element of doubt in relation to the directive.

[Mr Chope]

To clarify, is my hon. Friend saying that the discussions on this matter will take place before the Bill is considered in Committee so that there is time for it to be amended to reflect the outcome of those discussions or is he saying that any amendments will be made subsequent to Committee stage?

[Mark Field]

The Committee stage is clearly not imminent, so there will hopefully be time for fully fledged discussions in which the corporation can make its case robustly, given the opinion that we have received from counsel. That will provide the opportunity for amendments, but one would hope that they will not be needed and that the case can be smoothed over in advance of Committee stage. I will willingly do that on behalf of the corporation to try to get the Bill through the Committee stage, whenever such further proceedings can be arranged.

I believe that the corporation is right in its view that the street trading provisions in the Bill are consistent with the directive. The Government, in the shape of Department for Business, Innovation and Skills officials, have indicated that they are content on two of the three main points that have been raised, although they have recently expressed concerns about the third point, which we have already discussed. Clearly, it would not be in anyone’s interest, least of all the City corporation as promoter of the Bill, to do anything that could reasonably be regarded as contrary to EU law. We therefore need to get clarification on this matter.

I will go through the Bill in a little more detail. The substantive provisions begin with clauses 3 to 5, which make provision for temporary street trading licences. Those licences will last for up to 21 days and may be granted for any area in the City other than Middlesex street. The organisers of an event would be able to apply for a licence on behalf of any number of street traders.

Clause 6 will bring the maximum fine for illegal street trading in the City into line with the rest of London. Currently, the maximum fine in the City is a level 2 fine of £500, whereas for the rest of London it is a level 3 fine of £1,000. That is a straightforward measure to harmonise the situation.

Clause 7 provides for the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles and goods used for the purpose of unlawful street trading. As I have said, this is in substance the same set of powers that exists in the rest of Greater London under the London Local Authorities Act 2007, which introduced a new enforcement regime into the street trading code laid down by the London Local Authorities Act 1990. Seized property may be forfeited to the court or sold to meet an award of costs on the conviction of a person for the offence. Otherwise, it must generally be returned to the person from whom it was seized. Provision is made in the Bill for the disposal of property that cannot be returned and for compensation for any unlawful seizure. Special provision is made for the return or disposal of motor vehicles or perishable items. Clause 7 also enables a fixed penalty notice to be given for illegal street trading, as can happen in the rest of Greater London and areas outside the capital.

Clause 8 will end the need to enact a byelaw to vary the charges that apply to street traders. That procedure is so cumbersome that the charge for street traders in the City has remained unchanged for the past 24 years. It seems to me that only MPs’ salaries have remained unchanged for the same length of time. Perhaps I am exaggerating slightly. However, the charge has remained unchanged at £15, which contrasts with the charge for street trading imposed in, for example, the neighbouring Tower Hamlets, which is £32. I should say that Middlesex street is bisected by the boundary—it runs from north-west to south-east, and the southern side is in the City of London and the northern side in Tower Hamlets. It would make sense to harmonise the charges.

[Mr Chope]

Can my hon. Friend adduce some evidence of the impact on supply and demand of having street trading charges that are below the level in Tower Hamlets?

[Mark Field]

I have been regularly to Petticoat lane, mainly before my time as a Member of Parliament, and it did not strike me that there was an immense difference at that time, although that was some time ago. Notwithstanding the different charges, there did not seem to be a particular disincentive to have a stall in Tower Hamlets rather than in the City of London. I should perhaps stress to my hon. Friend that the charge is designed only to reflect relevant costs, but having been set at £15 since 1989, putting it up to £32 does not seem a huge imposition on those who would trade on the City side of Middlesex street.

Clause 9 will enable food premises to sell ice creams from stalls or dispensers on the public highway outside the premises. If approved, a stall may be set up within 15 metres of the business premises. That distance was chosen as a reasonable outer limit given the nature of the public areas in which the sale of ice cream might take place. If a location closer to the premises were deemed more appropriate by the House, I believe that could be set out by the corporation.

Finally, clause 10 will make two small changes to the law on City walkways. I should say that walkways are neither footpaths nor highways in the conventional sense but private access ways over which the public are given a right to pass on foot. The concept was initiated by the City in a private Bill enacted as long ago as 1967. Walkways are found, for example, in the Barbican. In the immediate aftermath of the second world war, as part of the rebuilding following the bombing, there was the dream of creating the Barbican, and indeed the dream of creating a business district within the City of London with relatively few residents. Pedways were envisaged at first-floor level, not just in the Barbican but beyond. The clause will enable the corporation to impose a charge to recoup administrative costs incurred whenever a landowner requests a new declaration or a variation of a walkway. The second element of clause 10 will enable a fixed penalty notice to be issued when there is unlawful parking on a City walkway, as already occurs when there is unlawful parking on a footpath.

The Bill is a modest measure aimed at relaxing the existing street trading code in the City of London to provide important flexibility. It will enhance the attractiveness and vitality of the City both for its residents—for the first time in more than two centuries we saw an increase in the residential population of the City of London in the most recent census—and for those who work in and visit the City. As I have said, the emergence of New Change as a new shopping centre means that the City will become a more attractive place over weekends, and more and more shops there are open on Saturdays and Sundays. I therefore ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is worth reminding ourselves that if a blocking motion had not been tabled, we would not be having a Second Reading debate—it would have gone through on the nod. What we have heard so far, with the helpful explanation given by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), shows the importance of ensuring that we have a Second Reading debate on a Bill of this import. It may not affect the whole country, but it involves important principles. As we have heard, it may have an impact on national law in relation to the European Union services directive, as incorporated into United Kingdom law.

I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) admits to having only just got to grips with the issue. There has been a lot of notice of the Bill and, as the Minister said, it was discussed in another place as recently as April 2011, so I am surprised that he did not brief himself sooner. Had he done so, he might have been in a position to help the debate, particularly on the draconian powers of seizure and forfeiture in relation to ice cream vans and receptacles used in street trading.

It is worth considering the Bill in the context of the street trading and pedlary regime. The consultation on that regime, which the Government have said is ongoing, has been extended into the middle of next month and is designed to bring to Parliament’s attention issues arising from the EU services directive. When that directive was implemented, people thought it would have no impact on street trading, but it is now having such an impact that the Government are saying that the only way to ensure compliance is to abolish the pedlars legislation completely.

The City of London regime exempts the City from some provisions of the pedlar legislation, but the Government’s agenda seems to be to do away with pedlary altogether and, given the issue of equal access to street trading, effectively to deny people the privilege of trading freely in this country on the basis of a certificate from a police authority stating that they are of good character. As was clear from the Minister’s comments, the implication might be that it indirectly discriminates against non-EU nationals, but since when have we said that there should not be some privileges associated with being a British citizen?

That principle should be strongly upheld in the City of London. I pay tribute to the work done there. It is the heart of the British economy and over generations has exercised a form of local self-government that is an exemplar for other local authorities up and down the land. I was much involved in trying to ensure that powers to take over the City of London and make it just like any other borough were not carried.

That brings me to my point. That there are provisions relating to street trading in other London boroughs, such as Wandsworth, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) referred, might itself be a good reason why the City should retain its distinctive position—perhaps slightly aloof from other London boroughs. I do not know how he would describe it, but it is certainly different—and proud to be different—and just because some boroughs seem to have been heavy-handed in how they deal with enforcement and forfeiture, that is no reason why the same should apply in the City of London. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that there is a reason for not being uniform or homogenised.

[Mark Field]

I naturally agree that the City of London is special, and perhaps aloof, in comparison to all the other London boroughs, except of course for the City of Westminster, which I also represent in the House. I would not want to upset my other city. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we already accept that, so far as pedlary is concerned, a different set of rules has applied in the City of London for more than a century. The question is: why did the City of London suddenly want to impose a maximum fine of £1,000, rather than £500, simply to harmonise with other local authorities? My fear is that even £1,000 would be insufficient as a disincentive without commensurate powers of seizure for those who persistently offend against these byelaws.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. On the question of the level of fines, I would be more impressed—although I do not blame him for the situation—if there were some hard evidence of the number of cases that had been brought to court, the number of cautions that had been given or the number of offences that had not been prosecuted for one reason or another. During our discussions on the various pedlary and street trading Bills, certain assertions have been made by the Bills’ promoters—I do not want to taint the Corporation of London with the problems of the others—and it would be helpful if my hon. Friend provided some evidence.

[Mark Field]

The sheer cost of bringing legal proceedings is exorbitant. The fact that £1,000 would be the maximum amount that a persistent offender could be fined is therefore a strong disincentive. My hon. Friend will be aware that a hamburger van or ice cream van in central London can make a huge amount of money in a very short time, given the through-flow of people on the streets. It is a matter of concern—certainly in principle, although there is not necessarily any evidence—about the numbers of people who have gone through the whole legal process, given the fact that the New Change shopping parade has now been updated. It has been up and running only for the past 18 months, but its emergence will make the City of London a more attractive proposition for a significant number of tourists at weekends. I am afraid that the area could therefore attract more illegal ice cream sellers, and it is as a result of those concerns that we feel the need to move ahead. As I have said, the City of London is no longer lacking at weekends—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I think my hon. Friend knows the answer to that: I would like to see a much more relaxed arrangement. Any relaxation, however, is probably better than none. It is important for people to be able to enter the marketplace as business men without the need for much capital. I view that as fundamental in an entrepreneurial society. The City of London obviously epitomises the entrepreneurial society, which is why it is good for the City of London to encourage street traders and people starting out in their business life and career to be able to show what they are worth, perhaps initially by getting a street trading licence, perhaps operating like interns on a temporary basis and seeing how it goes. I believe that clause 3 is—I hope I do not have to eat these words later—a clause for good, so I support it.

The issue of temporary licences is not one that greatly concerns me, but I am concerned about whether the case for increased penalties has been made. It is easy to say that it is expensive to prosecute. We know that companies will say, “We do not prosecute people who are shoplifters because it is not worth the candle. It will cost us too much to prosecute and when we get people before the courts, the fines will be so derisory that we will not achieve much purpose and we will have been put to a lot of needless expense.” That argument is often put forward on behalf of public authorities, which are funded by local or national taxpayer resources.

Having said all that, this country is one that believes in the rule of law, and I would have thought that an important principle of the rule of law is that if an enforcement authority feels that breaches of specific local byelaws or local legislation are to the detriment of the people living in the area, it should be quite happy to prosecute, recognising that a cost is associated with that. Ultimately, the taxpayer pays a lot of money for prosecuting people and even more money if those people are convicted and sentenced to prison, but we do not say that it is not a good thing to do that, as it is an important matter of principle. I am not impressed, in respect of clause 6, with the idea that prosecuting authorities should not bring prosecutions just because they think it is not financially expedient to do so on the grounds that insufficient money will come back to them. Apart from anything else, the penalties that will be increased will be court penalties; as I understand it, they will not be to the benefit of City of London local council tax payers. The penalties would go to helping to meet the costs of the national Exchequer, as they are pooled for very understandable reasons. In the absence of hard evidence, I am not convinced of the case for increasing the penalties as set out in clause 6.

I have a much greater problem with clause 7. As I said in an intervention, the provisions on enforcement of seizure, the return of seized items, compensation, forfeiture of seized items, seizure of perishable articles, motor vehicles and disposal orders have been considered on a number of occasions by Members, most recently in respect of four private Bills promoted by the city of Leeds, the city of Nottingham, the city of Canterbury and Reading borough council. Those provisions were removed from all four Bills. My hon. Friend may say, “Ah, but this Bill relates to London, and the same provisions have been passed in the case of other London local authorities.” That is true, but they were passed against the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who I am pleased to see is present, and against my wishes, as well as, I believe, those of many other people.

[Mark Field]

My point was not simply that London is the capital city, but that the Bill deals specifically with the City of London. Given the importance of the business fraternity and given how few residents there are in the City, I believe that there is a case for reinforcing what my hon. Friend said earlier—that the City of London is and should be treated as a special case in this regard—particularly as the street trading provisions are so much more limited than they are in the other towns to which he has referred.

[Mr Chope]

I take the point. However, the other side of the coin is that the City of London seems to have managed perfectly well up to now and no big issue has arisen, but there suddenly seems to be a need to introduce draconian seizure provisions.

Line 25 of clause 7 starts off on the wrong basis. It begins:

“Subject to subsection (2) and section 16E (seizure of perishable articles or things), if an authorised officer or a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting”.

The tradition has always been that what is necessary is a reasonable ground for belief. It is hard to disprove a reasonable ground for suspicion, because suspicion is subjective anyway, so having to establish a reasonable ground for suspicion really means not having to establish anything whatsoever, in terms of a person having a guilty mind. All that is necessary is to establish a reasonable ground for suspecting.

I know that my hon. Friend is very fair-minded, and I hope that he will consider tabling an amendment in Committee. Amendments that we have tabled to a number of similar Bills—it appears almost as if all Bills such as this are drafted by the same people, and that may well be so; the same solicitors or agents often act on behalf of different local authorities—have been accepted on the basis that “reasonable grounds for belief” is a much fairer way of dealing with the issue that the promoters and my hon. Friend wish to address. Whatever else may be the case, I am sure that the City of London would not want to be accused of being other than fair-minded in relation to, in particular, the rule of law.

[Mark Field]

The City of London could never be anything other than entirely fair-minded. My hon. Friend will, of course, be well aware that section 38 of the London Local Authorities Act 1990 refers to reasonable grounds for suspicion. It should also be said that both Westminster city council and the London borough of Camden were given powers to seize equipment which an officer or constable had reasonable cause to believe was intended to be used to commit an offence, which is an even stronger basis. I accept, and I hope my hon. Friend will accept, that the position is not altogether clear-cut, although he makes a valid point about the distinction between belief and suspicion.

[Mr Chope]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. Meanwhile, in their consultation paper, the Government have proposed national legislation or regulation changes that local authorities can apply to opt in to. Effectively, they plan to impose, from the centre, a uniform regime covering issues such as this—issues of reasonable grounds for belief or suspicion, for instance—along with standard tests that would apply to the whole street trading regime and to the enforcement of infringements of it. I know that it is easy to argue the prematurity case in relation to Bills such as this, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could respond to that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field]

In fairness, there is a lot to be said for having a national law and for trying to standardise and harmonise things, but in my view it would still be essential to have provisions that take account of individual cities’ own unique circumstances. We have to start from where we are, however, and the Government are phenomenally busy with a huge amount of legislation on a wide range of matters—some of which I think my hon. Friend has some support for—and the reality is that we are not going to get such uniformity or harmonisation any time soon, so we need to make progress through private Bills such as this one.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend’s comments serve to remind me that last night I was in the City of London Guildhall library where our party colleague the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) made a speech entitled “Deregulating for growth,” which is a principle I am sure my hon. Friend and I both support. Too much legislation adds new regulation, however, which is counter-productive to the policy of promoting growth in our economy, and anything the City of London does in adding further regulation will come under more scrutiny than if that is done by a little borough council somewhere else in the country, as the ethos of the City of London is based on having the minimum amount of regulation necessary to ensure we get economic growth and successful financial and professional services industries in the City. It is against that background that I raise my concerns about clause 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Exactly. When people are given free rein to bring legislation before this House and to create new offences, the temptation always seems to be to draft the offences in the widest possible terms. It is incumbent on us to put pressure on the promoter of the Bill and to ask whether the proposals are reasonable or whether they go over the top. This is a good example of the drafting being far wider than it needs to be.

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend is well aware of how the provision is designed to operate. The vagaries of the British weather mean that the period of time in which anyone would want to sell ice cream is often limited, but if someone committed an offence over a period of two or three months of hot summer weather and had their ice cream van seized, it would mean that they could not get it back every three days and continue with impunity to commit another offence before the constable impounded it again. The intention is simply to ensure that someone who has committed an offence should not be entitled to continue to do so simply because the wheels of the legal process take a long time to work. That is what the measure is designed to do and it is quite common in a range of areas, not just with ice cream vendors in the City of London.

[Mr Chope]

I am sure that repeated offences or patterns of behaviour are widespread, as my hon. Friend says, but they are often dealt with by a civil injunction in the county court or even the High Court. There is no need to bring into the scope of the offence many innocents at large just because it is sometimes cumbersome to get an injunction. An injunction is a perfectly legitimate way of restraining such behaviour.

[Mark Field]

How would my hon. Friend feel as a council tax payer if the local authority in his area was taking out injunctions for such offences at vast cost rather than dealing with them? He and I are both constituency MPs and we deal daily with constituents who are concerned for a variety of reasons about the lack of enforcement action taken by our local authorities. This seems to me to be a sensible enforcement provision, whereas taking out an expensive and time-consuming injunction would clearly not be a sensible way forward.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I am not sure that I agree with him. One of the benefits of the injunction is that a breach can result in someone being brought before the courts for contempt of court and, ultimately, in their losing their liberty. That goes even further than this provision.

All we are talking about here is the liberty of ice cream vans. With injunctions, the person themselves can lose their physical liberty because they are in contempt of court. My hon. Friend should not belittle the traditional use of injunctions as a proper and effective remedy against persistent aberrant behaviour, which none of us support. In none of my arguments on any of these Bills have I wanted to excuse or encourage unlawful behaviour. All I have wanted to do is ensure that the responses are proportionate and that people who are innocent are not caught up in the panoply of the criminal law without knowing about it. In this particular case, someone could lose their ice cream van when they did not know that it had been used before.

[Mark Field]

I must confess that I hoped my hon. Friend would be delighted to see that there are 10 subsections dealing with the return of the seized articles and only three dealing with the seizure itself.

[Mr Chope]

That is almost a commentary on regulation. We regulate, and to deregulate we have to create provisions that are a lot more complicated than the original regulation. Reverting to the brilliant lecture that I attended last night, one of the representatives from a large City firm said that we must be alert to the danger of “comfort in complexity”. That is a good thing to bear in mind. My hon. Friend says that we introduce powers to seize and then we have to set out at even greater length the exemptions to the seizure regime. How complicated is that? It is unnecessarily complicated, regulatory and burdensome on people who might want to start a new enterprise that could result in their becoming multimillionaires and working for people in the City, whom Opposition Members so despise but we realise are important to the British economy. That is by the by.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I will not do so, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not want to cross you on this or any other matter.

I am delighted that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), is on the Front Bench to listen to the next part of the debate, as this is the issue that concerns his own Department—clause 9 on trading outside business premises. For reasons that I can understand, the City of London says that in order to bring a little more vibrancy to life in the City of London, particularly at weekends and particularly for tourists, why not allow people to sell ice creams off the street, rather than just from fixed locations in shops and cafes? It says that people should be able to sell ice creams from a receptacle, which could include an ice cream van, located within 15 metres of business premises.

Listening to the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, I was not sure whether the definition of business premises included St Paul’s cathedral chapter or not, and whether St Paul’s cathedral itself would be covered.

[Mark Field]

Ecclesiastical venues are an extremely serious business, but I do not think the intention was that St Paul’s chapter should be included as a business premises. There are a number of genuine business premises within the vicinity and curtilage of St Paul’s cathedral and they would be included.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Although I might quibble with the fact that the corporation is retaining for itself the ability to approve the design, location and purpose of the receptacle, I think the principle is a good one. I do not understand why it should be thought that this may indirectly discriminate against non-EU nationals, which is what the Minister who spoke earlier in the debate said she thought it might do. How would it do that?

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, with all the resources of the City of London behind him, at the behest of the Department got leading counsel’s opinion on the matter. Leading counsel’s opinion was submitted to the Department in February. By 14 February a holding reply had been issued. By 19 February—my right hon. Friend the Minister is rightly listening to this—the Department had already decided that leading counsel’s opinion, which had taken many months to produce, was wrong. Where does that leave everybody?

Surely the situation should have been anticipated by BIS a long time ago. It was BIS that proposed implementation of the EU services directive. Even now, two years—or is it three years?—after it has been implemented, we cannot even get a definitive ruling on whether the directive applies in such a way as to negate the legitimate aspiration of the City of London to enable people who already have businesses operating in the City of London to extend those businesses for the purpose of selling ice creams when the season is right. We must be absolutely mad if we think that should be outlawed because it might indirectly discriminate against non-EU nationals. I invite the Minister to let his imagination run riot and envisage any other legislature in the European Union stating that it would be wrong to bring in such a provision enabling their own people to engage in enterprise because it might indirectly discriminate against Brits, for example. I cannot believe that such an argument would be given the time of day in any other Parliament in the European Union. I hope that can be resolved.

There is also a procedural issue. As I understand it, there are no petitions against the Bill, so it will go into Committee unopposed. Unless it is amended in Committee, the House will not be able to amend it later, because it will not be considered on Report. We encountered that issue with the Nottingham City Council Bill, the Canterbury City Council Bill and others, which were originally not opposed but then went to the other place, where they were opposed. However, this Bill has already been to the other place.

Therefore, I think that it is important that my right hon. Friend the Minister, when responding to the debate, makes it explicit—it is already pretty explicit—how he and the City of London corporation will negotiate with the Department over the proper interpretation of clause 9 vis-à-vis the services directive. It is no good if the Bill goes through Committee before that is resolved, because there will be no scope under the procedures of this House to make amends later. If the Minister produces the certificate of incompatibility in due course, where will that lead?

[Mark Field]

It is absolutely clear that the City of London corporation would not wish any legislation that was incompatible with EU law to go through. The dispute between leading counsel and the Department needs to be resolved before we can proceed beyond Second Reading, and that does not prevent the Second Reading debate taking place today. I am confident that we will be able to get this matter resolved in a way that will satisfy not only my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), but the Department and the sponsors of the Bill.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend refers to the need to deal with Second Reading today. As is perhaps implicit from what I have been saying, there are many parts of the Bill that I think are good, but there are some that I am not so happy about and some issues that I think need to be resolved. I am not minded to oppose the Bill’s Second Reading, because I think that my hon. Friend brings a constructive approach to these debates, which is no more nor less than we would expect of him and, certainly, of the City of London itself. It recognises that some of us believe that these Bills are better discussed than pushed through without proper discussion. In that spirit, I hope that some of the concerns I have expressed during my short contribution to the debate can be reflected upon to see whether any amendments should be proposed in Committee.

I am not often lost for words when it comes to the details of Bills, but I have nothing to say about the provisions on walkways set out in clause 10. I think that any reasonable person would accept the analogy between a walkway and a footpath, so I am certainly not going to quibble about that.

Having put on the record some of my concerns about the Bill, I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster on the way in which he introduced it. I hope that in due course he will get some clarity from the Department, and perhaps even an admission that it let people down by not recognising the implications of the EU services directive for street trading and pedlary in this country.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Debate between Mark Field and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

Exactly. My hon. Friend’s excellent point shows the gravity of the complexity that the Government are introducing. The figure is more than £100 million in administration costs to take away child benefit from 1.2 million families, either in total or in part.

[Mark Field]

Is my hon. Friend concerned that the estimate is likely to be somewhat conservative? Many people are employed as consultants, so they do not know from one year to another whether they will be earning between £50,000 and £60,000. Huge costs will be involved in trying to collect the money, and I dare say a massive amount will have to be written off year on year if the charge goes through as proposed.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a series of good points that are recognised in the HMRC document to which I have referred. It says that the definition of a partnership will be the same as the one in the Tax Credits Act 2002, yet we already know that the Act and the technical manual that flowed from it resulted in an enormous administrative burden for those trying to work out who formed a couple, or when partnerships began or ended. There is a great file of documentation on how to interpret the tax credit definitions of partnership when people are cohabiting, whether or not they are in civil partnerships. The complications of the child tax credit system have resulted in a lot of fraud.

If we apply new rules to a fresh group of taxpayers and for the first time introduce in the tax system definitions of couples and partnerships, we shall create an enormous administrative burden. The document notes that the overall impact will be that HMRC will have to spend approximately £100 million on staff resources. If we say that that is £20 million a year—although it is actually more—at an average cost of £30,000 for a member of staff, we should be taking on 650 extra staff just to administer the removal of child benefit from 1 million families who currently enjoy it.

That is not the end of the story. We also have the problem that 500,000 tax-paying families who previously have not had to make a tax return will now have to do so. That is not mentioned in the cost analysis, but it is a cost on the tax-paying public that will not be borne by the Exchequer.

The proposal is highly flawed, as the Treasury Committee has recognised. Paragraph 23 of its report on the Budget notes:

“We recognise that the Government needs to take difficult decisions to tackle the Budget deficit. Nonetheless, the Government’s latest proposals for reform of Child Benefit solve only one of the two main problems identified with its original policy. They add further complexity.”

That conclusion is based on evidence the Committee received from the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales and other experts. They all drew attention to the complexity involved, and some of them pointed out the odd distinction between the child benefit charge and the justification articulated by the Chancellor for removing the age allowance for the over-65s. During the Budget debates, the Chancellor told us that the main justification for removing the age allowance was to bring about simplification, yet that will be the reverse of the added complexity that he is introducing through the child benefit tax charge.

I hope we shall have a bit of give from the Government. If they want everybody on a higher income to make an additional and fair contribution to deficit reduction, will they tell us why their proposals are targeted on those on higher incomes with children, while those on higher incomes who do not have children are excluded? I hope the debate will give us the opportunity to get answers from the Government on those points.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Debate between Mark Field and Christopher Chope

Monday 16th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

If the right hon. Lady will forgive me, I would like to make some progress because others want to get in.

The provisions in clause 8 on the high-income child benefit change to income tax will doubtless be the subject of extensive controversy. In spite of the misgivings I have expressed since the scheme was proposed in October 2010—in particular, that it seems to act as a penalty on aspiration and families in which one parent stays at home to rear children—I accept the overriding need to reduce the vast fiscal deficit. However, the tapering of the change to income tax for those earning between £50,000 and £60,000 a year will result in marginal tax rates of 65% for families with three or more children. Conservatives such as me believe in promoting incentives, but it is difficult to reconcile the proposition that those earning more than £150,000 are deemed to require a highest marginal rate of 45%—a proposition that, I hasten to add, I fully support—with the proposal that earners with several children at the level affected by clause 8 must apparently settle for paying marginal rates of up to 20 percentage points higher. I fear that the controversy in middle Britain about these child benefit changes will continue to resonate strongly in the months ahead.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I think that my hon. Friend and I share similar views on this. Does he accept that if, for example, we were to take all people earning more than £60,000, regardless of whether they have children, and charge them £1,000 a year, the yield would be £2 billion in 2013-14—far more than the yield from this complicated tax targeted at those with children rather than those without them?

[Mark Field]

I worry that too much of this tinkering will be counter-productive in any event and that the tapering of the child benefit system will be hugely expensive. Many people do not know whether they will earn between £50,000 and £60,000. They might work on a consultancy basis or spend a few months a year unemployed or travelling. Trying to unravel all that will be incredibly difficult.

I wish to make a few provisional passing comments on clauses 211 to 213 and 224 relating to the Chancellor’s decision to impose a 15% stamp duty land tax on acquisitions of £2 million and residential properties by non-natural persons—in other words, companies. Although I support the essence of the proposal, it might have the unintended consequence of stalling development, particularly in central London. I appreciate that high-end property developers might not necessarily be seen as deserving of particular Government acknowledgement, but there is no doubt that the property development industry in and around central London generates significant tax revenues and creates jobs. Not only are the profits taxable here but significant amounts of irrecoverable VAT are often incurred on redevelopment projects. Developers will generate SDLT revenue by buying and reselling redeveloped properties.

In the Budget press release, it was noted that the 15% SDLT charge would not apply to developers because they tended to use companies for limited liability rather than tax avoidance reasons, but when the draft legislation was published, the relief for developers was limited to bona fide developers who had been carrying on a residential property development business for at least two years. The two-year requirement may seem eminently sensible as a means of ensuring that short-life development companies are not established by individuals who ultimately wish simply to use the property in question. Nevertheless, I fear that the qualifying period will discriminate against new property development businesses, which cannot show the requisite track record. Indeed, all new entrants into the market are likely to be priced out because their acquisition costs have suddenly become 8% higher than those of their competitors. We therefore risk creating an uneven market—indeed, a market against newcomers.

The 15% charge is also likely to be an issue for experienced developers. The scarcity of bank finance for development properties at the moment means that much of the finance for high-end residential property development is coming from equity investors, who are bridging the significant funding gap that now exists. The requirements of equity investors will often mean that stand-alone special purpose vehicles are established for individual projects, so once again, the statutory test will not be met. If HMRC wants to consider an alternative policing arrangement and seeks to avoid creating a dual market, it might consider imposing a second charge—either another 7% or the balance of the 15%—if the property is used before being sold on by a developer with SDLT. Alternatively, there could be a time-based charge, so that if the property has not been sold after, say, three years, the second charge comes into play.

It is perhaps understandable that this afternoon I have dwelt on some of my concerns about the Bill. Nevertheless, I appreciate the acutely troubled state of the public finances. The Chief Secretary was absolutely right when he said that it was important that we should not pass on the costs of this generation’s excessive consumption to our children and grandchildren. I therefore reiterate my support for the deficit reduction plan that the coalition set out almost two years ago. I trust that the Bill will progress swiftly and smoothly to the statute book.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a lot to be said for simplification and stopping the churning effect. The late Lord Joseph was a great campaigner on these issues, and other Conservatives in the past have campaigned to simplify the tax system, which is the avowed intent of this Government. I also think it right to recognise in the tax system that when people have equivalent incomes, those with children have higher costs than those without children. If we are to recognise families in the tax system, one way is to have what used to be a child allowance, which is now incorporated into the child benefit.

If parents have higher costs, why should they start to pay tax at the same level of income as somebody who is not a parent and does not have those higher costs? That is where I disagree with the Government on this policy, which I do not think is fair or consistent. When it has been justified by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Exchequer Secretary, they have argued that it is wrong that people who earn £20,000 or £30,000 a year pay for the child benefit of people like my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). The answer to that is that neither my hon. Friend nor other people are being subsidised in that way by other taxpayers, because, as the Exchequer Secretary confirmed in a written answer to me just before the recess, somebody would have to have 10 children and be on the threshold of higher-rate tax before they started to receive more child benefit than they were paying out in tax. The Government deploy a specious argument when they say that someone on £20,000 or £30,000 a year is paying for my hon. Friend’s child benefit.

[Mark Field]

I think my hon. Friend and I agree that one of the most important tasks for any Government is to get the huge deficit down. One of the single biggest costs is the cost of welfare, which this year, for the very first time, will go through an aggregate £200 billion mark. Does he not accept that reconsidering the universality of certain benefits would be a sensible way to get the deficit down? Although I do not disagree with elements of what he has said about the workings of clause 8, consideration of removing universality from relatively well-off people, not just for this benefit but for others, would be a desirable way forward.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I said at a press conference organised by the Child Poverty Action Group, there is a strong intellectual case for saying that we should revisit universal benefits. What is happening here, however, is that one particular universal benefit—child benefit—is under attack whereas others are not. Will we say next that if somebody with wealthy parents presents themselves at a hospital, their parents should have to pay a charge? Are we going to start saying that free dental treatment for children should not be available to the children of better-off families? Are we going to remove a whole load of other universal benefits? If we are thinking of going down that route, we should have a big public discussion and a public debate. We should put all the universal benefits into the melting pot and decide whether we think there would be a big benefit if the number of universal benefits were reduced or eliminated and whether, as a result, the overall levels of tax could be reduced.

[Mark Field]

I know that my hon. Friend is a very brave man and I recall that Christchurch is the constituency with the largest number of pensioners. Does he think that the universal benefits of the television licence allowance and the winter fuel allowance should not necessarily go to the wealthiest of his pensioner constituents?

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to hide behind the manifesto commitments made by the Conservative party and the Prime Minister. I was going to refer later to some of the background, but, prompted by that intervention, I will perhaps say the following. When the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, he said:

“I want the next Government to be the most family friendly Government we’ve ever had in this country”.

On 5 March 2010, he told a public meeting in Bolton that he would not change child benefit. On 6 October 2009, six months or so earlier, the then shadow Chancellor, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, told the Conservative party conference:

“We will preserve child benefit”.

I certainly went into the general election thinking that we would preserve child benefit as part of the universal benefit system in the same way as we would preserve the universal benefits that are applicable to so many of my constituents, as my hon. Friend points out.

My belief was reinforced on 22 June 2010, when the Chancellor said in his Budget speech in this House that

“we have decided to freeze child benefit for the next three years. This is a tough decision, but I believe that it strikes the right balance between keeping intact this popular universal benefit, while ensuring that everyone across the income scale makes a contribution to helping our country reduce its debts.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 173.]

At that stage, everybody thought that that was the end of it. We would retain child benefit, but freeze it for three years, The yield to the Exchequer of freezing child benefit in 2013-14 is no less than £1 billion. Looking back, I think that that was also the point at which the Chancellor should have said that he was going to freeze the age-related allowances. If that had been presented in the same context, with those in receipt of child benefit having their benefit frozen at the same time as those in receipt of age-related allowances had theirs frozen, I do not think that there would have been a row about it as there has been this time.

That is the background, so how were we able to end up with the Government effectively launching an attack on hard-working families with children? The Government have got themselves into a mess because they have not complied with their own policy of properly discussing the issues in advance of introducing measures. An interesting document, “Tax policy making: a new approach”, was produced immediately after the election. It was issued by the Treasury in June 2010 and in the preface, my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary said:

“I want a new approach to tax policy making; a more considered approach. Consultation on”

tax

“design and scrutiny of draft legislative proposals should be the cornerstones of this approach.”

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Mark Field and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I hope neither, but my hon. Friend is right that as sure as night follows day, what follows from this sort of power is the establishment of databases. That is very sinister.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I sympathise extensively with what my hon. Friend says about the civil liberties issues, but on this specific matter I suspect that the official concerned would have computer access to the electoral register and could therefore make at least a cursory check, although that might not necessarily resolve the matter. Is his concern—it is a relatively valid one, and I would be interested to hear what the promoters think—that were clause 4 to be deleted, law-abiding citizens would find themselves subject to the penalties under clause 3, while less law-abiding citizens would get away scot-free? In other words, there would be a strong disincentive for those willing to play by the rules, while others would find a way of avoiding the consequences. Although I accept his civil liberties argument, surely there is a concern that many pedlars of no fixed abode, or of an abode many miles away, could get away with such things more easily than others.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend almost answered his own point in his preamble, when he said that this was a civil liberties issue. I think that he and I agree. If there is a civil liberties issue, on the whole our instinct is to come down on the side of maintaining the civil liberty rather than giving an arbitrary power to an official to intervene—a power that might be subject to abuse or result in oppression, and which would certainly undermine the long-standing principle in this country that people are not required to give their name and address to any Tom, Dick and Harry whom they happen to meet in the street.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. It certainly appears that the public’s representatives are not keen on this matter. Although I have not checked the No. 10 website to see whether there is an online petition with hundreds or thousands of signatures in support of this Bill, I suspect not, and I think we would have been told about it if there was. The Bill’s passage through this House has not yet concluded, however, so it is still open to somebody to start an online petition in support of it, and against today’s amendments.

[Mark Field]

I have some sympathy with the view that certain parts of the country should not have an entirely different regime, and I share many of my hon. Friend’s concerns about council or local authority officers having these powers—although I am a big supporter of the two London local authorities in my constituency. However, I do not think he can legitimately argue that there has not been an opportunity to scrutinise this Bill properly, as it has had far more scrutiny than any Public Bill would normally receive, not least over the past four years as it has slowly made its way through the House and the other place.

Does my hon. Friend also recognise that there are differences between London and, for instance, the leafy parts of Christchurch that he represents in sunny Dorset? There is a huge mass of humanity in London, particularly in the centre of the metropolis, and that gives rise to at least the idea that there should be a slightly different regime for some public order and health and safety matters compared with those for the wide acres of much of the rest of England. If we believe in localism, as I hope many of us do, there is a place for having somewhat different regimes of bylaws, and I suspect they would be understood by many people who visit central London even from faraway places such as Shipley, Bury North or East Yorkshire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

That is an important point, because most borough councils are saying that they are short of funds and will want to ensure that these accredited people at least cover their costs. In order to do that, these authorities may well give these people incentives to ensure that they get sufficient income for their activity in any tour of duty. So that is another serious problem. As far as I am aware, we have never had a system in this country where police officers are incentivised for the number of arrests they make, but it seems that people are being incentivised for the number of civil offences they can detect.

[Mark Field]

Although I very much understand the concern raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on incentivisation, I should put the following point on the record: Westminster city council has often been accused of incentive schemes for its parking attendants, but it is the case, and has been expressly so over past four years at least, that there is no such incentive scheme. In other words, traffic wardens do not have any sort of quota or incentive to issue tickets, and one very much hopes that a similar regime would apply to offences under this Bill.